Search

The rate of anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccinations is estimated to be 2–11 cases per million doses administered. However, adrenaline is occasionally used in individuals who are later diagnosed with immunisation stress-related responses, as their initial presenting signs and symptoms can appear similar to that of anaphylaxis. This study aims to describe the clinical profile of individuals who had received adrenaline following a COVID-19 vaccine and their subsequent revaccination outcomes. We examined notifications of cases who had received adrenaline following a COVID-19 vaccine in New South Wales, Australia. The cases were classified into Brighton Collaboration Case Definition (BCCD) for anaphylaxis, their clinical presentation, management and subsequent revaccination outcomes were compared. From 22 February 2021 to 30 September 2021, there were 222 cases where adrenaline was administered. Of these, 32 (14 %) fulfilled Level 1 BCCD, 59 (27%) Level 2, 2 (1%) Level 3, 97 (44%) Level 4 and 32 (14 %) Level 5. The most commonly reported symptoms were sensation of throat closure (n = 116, 52%), difficulty breathing (n = 82, 37%) and nausea (n = 55, 25 %). Of the 176 (79%) individuals who proceeded to further vaccination, 89 (51%) received the same vaccine formulation and only 14 (8%) experienced another allergic adverse event with 9 (5%) receiving adrenaline. Less than one in five individuals who received adrenaline met Level 1 BCCD criteria for anaphylaxis. Many reactions that were treated with adrenaline had little to no diagnostic certainty of anaphylaxis and in such cases repeat vaccination had a high likelihood of being tolerated. Increased awareness and education on objective signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis is required to ensure appropriate use of adrenaline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on genotyping of Urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis in Regional New South Wales, Australia. It is said that Chlamydia Trachomatis is the most common cause of bacterial sexually transmitted infections worldwide. Chlamydia also acts as a marker of increased risk for human immunodeficiency virus infection and may directly contribute to human immunodeficiency virus infection. C. trachomatis is seen rising rapidly in most developed countries, including Australia. It is stated that the population rate of C. trachomatis infection in New South Wales doubled between 1996 and 2000 and between 2001 and 2005.

Previously thought to be mainly a disorder of childhood and early adult life, coeliac disease (CeD) is increasingly diagnosed in older adults. This may be important given the association between CeD and osteoporosis. The primary aim of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of undiagnosed CeD (‘at-risk serology’) in an older Australian community and relate this to a diagnosis of osteoporosis and fractures during a follow-up period of 12 years. We included participants from the Hunter Community Study (2004⁻2007) aged 55⁻85, who had anti-tissue transglutaminase (tTG) titres, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotypes, and bone mineral density measurements at baseline. Follow-up data included subsequent diagnosis of CeD and fractures using hospital information. ‘At-risk’ serology was defined as both tTG and HLA positivity. Complete results were obtained from 2122 patients. The prevalence of ‘at-risk’ serology was 5%. At baseline, 3.4% fulfilled criteria for a diagnosis of osteoporosis. During a mean of 9.7 years of follow-up, 7.4% of the cohort suffered at least one fracture and 0.7% were subsequently diagnosed with CeD. At-risk serology was significantly associated with osteoporosis in a multivariate model (odds ratio 2.83, 95% confidence interval 1.29⁻6.22); there was insufficient power to look at the outcome of fractures. The results of this study demonstrate that at-risk CeD serology was significantly associated with concurrent osteoporosis but not future fractures. Most individuals with a serological diagnosis of CeD were not diagnosed with CeD during the follow-up period according to medical records. Coeliac disease likely remains under-diagnosed.

This study aimed to estimate the risk of an allergic reaction for patients receiving home intravenous antibiotics, and to identify the potential advantages and disadvantages of providing injectable epinephrine in this patient population. In this study, 770 patients received 1000 courses of home intravenous therapy with 25 different antibiotics for 37 conditions. The patients in the program experienced 28 allergic reactions. The mean time to allergic reaction was 19.6 days. No episodes of anaphylaxis were observed. These results, coupled with the potential disadvantages of issuing epinephrine to all patients receiving home antibiotic therapy, suggest that this strategy may not provide a net benefit.